Agenda item

Attending for this Item were:

Worcestershire County Council

Madeleine Sumner, Community Transport Development Officer

Paul Smith, Transport Operations Manager

Worcestershire Community Transport Consortium

David Muggeridge, Chairman

Officers talked through the Agenda Report and Member questions were asked and answered throughout the discussion.

The following main points were raised:

·         Nationally, there was a drive to deliver Community Transport (CT) and the Council worked closely with the 18 schemes operating in Worcestershire (14 of which formed part of the Consortium)

·         Although some drivers were paid, there was a reliance on volunteers and around 500 were involved across the County, delivering approximately 160,000 journeys each year.  Volunteers were reimbursed for their expenses for using their own vehicle and all volunteers and paid drivers  were subject to a Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) Check to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable groups

·         Through a Council grant, which would end in March 2020, the Council  worked with the CT Consortium to ensure a range of transport services was provided.  Examples included exploring options with CT providers when a commercial bus service was withdrawn

·         In response to a question about the large number of operators in the County, Members were informed that providers wanted to retain their independence and serve their local community, with fundraising and the recruitment of volunteers also being more successful if targeted at a geographical location rather than County wide

·         The Panel also learned that each scheme operated differently; however, all fares were based on mileage, despite the rate differing between areas.  Example costings were given, with an average fare in Wyre Forest being £4.20 and a return journey from Tenbury to Worcester being £19.  It was noted that these were less than taxi fares

·         Operating costs, such as rent or telephony, were sometimes taken into account when setting fares.  It was noted that some schemes were offered rent free premises

·         There was a continuous drive for schemes to work together and an annual development plan was produced with publicity being shared across providers to ensure passengers were provided for.  In addition, operators were moving towards having the same booking and scheduling software

·         It was recognised that Health Transport was as important as Education or Adult Social Care transportation, with around half of annual journeys going to healthcare appointments.  Officers were due to meet healthcare partners to discuss a future operating model which would propose to provide a single point of contact for all healthcare travel needs, signposting and publicity

·         Non-emergency patient transport was undertaken by West Midlands Ambulance Service and despite efforts to engage with the service to possibly provide a CT solution, the service was not receptive, despite Gloucestershire operating a very successful scheme

·         Members shared Officers' and Consortium concerns over pending changes in operating legislation, whereby if CT operators using 9 - 16 seater minibuses were no longer able to bid for contracts due to challenge by commercial operators, there was a danger that CT schemes would have to close.  When asked about the worst case scenario, Members were informed that five schemes and around 14,500 journeys would be affected.  The Panel asked to be updated in due course on the outcome of the national consultation about this

·         When contacting a CT provider, passengers were asked a number of questions to ascertain whether they were eligible for the service.  Although not means tested, residents were asked if they could travel by any other means, such as car, bus, taxi or if they were a wheelchair user, whether they could access a car.  It is also made clear that there was a charge to ensure no surprises and if the cost was not affordable, passengers may be directed to social care for support

·         Members reported that the Website was not totally accurate and commented that a strong website was required, in addition to good telephony.  Officers acknowledged that a website audit was needed

·         Non Panel Member, Councillor Eyre, reported on a Wychavon District Council scrutiny task group on rural transport and reported that the group had found need continued not to be met and was more than shopping or medical need.  Examples of young people, or social occasions, such as visits to the theatre, were cited, although accessing employment was not an issue

·         It was clear that commercial operators could not fulfil the gap and minibus journeys also provided a social aspect.  There was a need for more local champions and it was suggested that the Council was overly optimistic about the willingness of volunteers.  It was suggested that Healthwatch Worcestershire may be able to help in the plans for healthcare transportation

·         The potential to publicise schemes via County Councillors and various local organisations was highlighted.

In summary, the Panel Members agreed to make the following recommendations to the Cabinet Member:

·         Members were fully supportive of the ongoing work in Community Transport and asked what more Members could do to promote CT in their communities

·         The Panel was deeply concerned about the pending changes to operating legislation and recommended that if these were introduced, Worcestershire County Council contracts should be changed to enable minibuses with less than 9 seats to be considered

·         Members agreed that more joined up thinking would provide stability and improvement in the CT market and hoped that providers would consider further joint working

In addition to being informed about the outcome of the consultation about changes to operating legislation, the Panel requested an overall update was in twelve months.